The fact that the company took over from a legally registered trust by the same name appears to be beside the point and just because four people sign a document claiming that their trust had existed since 2000 then that too must be true.

Have the charity people not heard of verification???? And why shouldnt we all just use trading names just think of the confusion.. we could all call ourselves John Smith .. we have name registers for a reason. the reason I questioned the name animal welfare institute of New Zealand in the first place was because it was a law enforcement agency and Neil wells on the application to the minister had stated that the deed had been singed and that the registration was in process.

Judge Joyce decided that Mr Wells got a head of himself.. Try that one in court if you ever appear before his honour.. Well your honour I was doing 100 in a 50 area because there was a 100 kph area up the road I got ahead of myself.

Or I wasnt shop lifting I simply got ahead of myself I left the shop without paying.

If it works for barristers then it has to work f or the rest of.

It also worked for Neil wells when he applied for funding from the community board he said there was a trust but there wasnt one.. Any one else would have been done like a dog’s dinner but some how Neil Wells has immunity. He can

He is a life coach known as “life coach Tom”. His web site says “Be well. Seek and find your own and therefore authentic truth for there you will find contentment and harmony with your self and the universe.”

His history can be summed up from this article from the RNZSPCA “Tom Didovich was recently appointed national education and branch support manager, based at national office . Much of Tom’s 25-year background in animal welfare has been as manager of Animal Welfare Services in Waitakere,west of Auckland”

What is not revealed is Didovich’s connection with AWINZ this can be shown historically as follows.

In May 1995 Wells acting as a consultant for waitakere city corresponds with MAF enclosing a proposal for the animal welfare division of Waitakere city to commence a pilot programe for the council officers to be trained to a standards equal to or exceeding that of RNZSPCA officers – ( note the charge out rates on page 7 )

In preparation for the transition into a private service the Animal welfare Division which Didovich heads has an overnight name change … nothing more than a stroke of a pen.

An agreement “pilot contract” is forwarded to Didovich from Wells which includes provision for Wells to act as Barrister see clause 4 (e)as part of the “pilot programme”

As the Bill which has been written by Wells progresses through the select Committee (where Wells is employed as a independent adviser ) it becomes clear that a formal structure is required to facilitate the concept of this “ territorial animal welfare Authority “ and Wells proposes a Trust concept for which he is paid , the invoice is approved by Didovich and paid for by public funds .

In January 1998 a proposal document “strategic options ” emerges in which it states “Care would be needed to ensure that activities are not perceived to be in competition with the SPCA although this might be a challenge.”

3 march 1998 Wells communicates with Didovich and has commented on Didovich’sDraft .

April 1998 email wells email “Confidentially, as you know there is a thrust to form a new charitable organisation similar in objective to the SPCA but organizationally different in that it would be a charitable trust rather than an incorporated society. But both are not-for-profit organisations.” While delivering animal welfare compliance would be one of the objectives it would not be the only one.

While there would be no thrust to promote the new charitable trust as an “alternative SPCA” it would not take long for the public to gain this perception. This is all part of contestability”.

13 may 1998 Didovich provides comments on why there is a need for a trust

31 aug 1998 It would appear that the pilot programme which was set up for 6 months continued to operate without any official authority ( based on the word interregnum) . despite the fact that the “pilot programme” appeared to be operating in anticipation of the new act becoming law .

2 sept 1998 Didovich announces that Animal welfare Waitakere has the dog control contract for the North shoreand comments that the North shore is a wealthy area into which they can tap for DONATIONS. He also talks of calling the service provided to North shore as Animal care and control, this is again but a trading name.

2 sept 1998 there is a letter from Wells to DIDOVICH clarifying that “The pilot programme has now passed Into an ‘Interregnum’ phase.” There is no evidence that Didovich ever questioned what this meant and if he had authority to continue on with the programme.

didovich email sept 98Didovich updates his superiors and tells them of a requirement for a trust and a response is received from John Rofe principal adviser council owned business . and a Further more official response is located which appears to have been prompted by Didovich pressuring the council in that establishing a trust step was Urgent paragraph 2 .council direction re trust

On 30 November 1999 an invoice is issued by Wells to recruit the trustees this invoice is authorized for payment by Didovich invoice re trustees this trust was to include Waitakere city but it never eventuated as such an no deed was ever signed.

23 December 1998 there was communications with some of the council staff with regards to the waitakere trust “In discussion today with Tom and Neil Wells, it was agreed that from a public relations perspective, their position should be preserved in some way – either as is or by being absorbed in or connected with the new trust. However, a great deal of the current Animal Welfare development proposal is confidential for the meantime and some Friends of the Ark are connected with SPCA”

19 jan 1999Neil Wells tells MAF that the council have opted for not being in the trust but it appears that this is not communicated to Didovich (or the council) who continues to push the council to set up a trust many months on. didovich email june 99

14 june 1999 Didovich keeps the pressure on to the council and cites the reason being that “The alternative is for Animal Welfare Services to lose all the warrants and this will set us back considerably”. Is he ignorant of Well’s plans doesn’t he know that wells has already told MAF that the city is not going to be involved, or is Wells playing one off against the other?

The second thing that happen at this time is that a notice of intent is sent to the minister before the bill is even completed and a month later an application is made for funds for the non existent organisation AWINZ. Two names appear on the application. Neil Wells and Tom Didovich.

at about the same time Didovich and Wells let the SPCA know that they have set up a trust , the general impression is that a trust exists but nothing has ever been done to set one up.

Maf require verification from both Waitakere city and North shore city as to support for AWINZ and Didovich does this on two separate letter heads One for north shore and one for Waitakere

Tom later sends through statements from all fourteen staff with regards to their enforced willingness to work for AWINZ, I have attached those of Lyn McDonald QSM and Jane Charles who both lost their jobs later because they were perceived as a threat to AWINZ. Staff to whom I have spoken said that they were upset with this move as they were given no opportunity to decline this involvement and received no extra pay.

1 sept 2000 Discussion occurs with MAF and further legal opinions are sought all for the setting up of a Private enterprise all paid for by the public purse

AWINZ against the recommendations of MAF and treasurybecomes an approved organisation just after Bob Harvey who at the time was the president of the Labour party and Mayor of Waitakere was consulted.harvey briefed

In 2004 Didovich and Wells signed an mou for waitakere . Didovich signing on behalf of the linked organisation Waitakere city and also according to their files for North shore City.

Didovich has the honour of being written up in the herald he makes the point of stating “”We enforce both the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Animal Welfare Act 1999, other councils don’t. “

In 2005 Didovich and a staff member form a liaison and Didovich has to move on . Neil Wells takes over as manager animal welfare and remains CEO of the so called AWINZ effectively contracting to himself. A check of the companies Web site for ONLINE GOODS LIMITED shows that Didovich is in business with Vicki Whitaker who resides at the same address as him she is an AWINZ inspector and is employed by Waitakere city council as a dog control officer

Didovich on leaving the council takes up a role with the RNZSPCA National Education and Branch Support Manager but later find his way into being a life coach .

When we raised Questions with regards to the existence of AWINZ in 2006 a trust deed emerges dated 1/3/2000 . It has to be noted that Didovich witnesses the signatures of Nuala Grove, Sarah Gilltrap and Graeme Coutts . Didovich in an affidavit claimed that he drove about Auckland to collect the signatures, it would appear that they could not even meet for such an important event as signing the trust deed and you can help but wonder if the date on the trust deed was accurate.

I am told that two of the trustees resigned allegedly because I harassed them ( I said excuse me are you a trustee of AWINZ ? ) Wells, Coutts and Hoadley take legal action against me ( see Hoadley’s involvement )

So what are the parameters between AWINZ and RNZSPCA are they acting as if they are one organisation or does it not matter that those in control of one are also in [psotions of control of the other?

The RNZSPCA are aware of Didovich’s involvement in AWINZ they obviously don’t take it as seriously as one Government department6 dec 2000 lotr did when they discovered that AWINZ had been employing RNZSPCA officers for the provision of false end titles for the Lord of the rings.aha

17/12/2009

I am addressing this to the head office of the Baptist church and passing it to other branches for transparency.

It is timely that I make this request of the church as this is Christmas time the season of joy and good will to all men.( and hopefully Women ) Luke 11:9

My Christmas is some what different this year , my life , my family has been torn apart by a elder of the Laingholm Baptist church, a barrister who through false evidence sworn on the bible in court has discredited me , it appears nothing has changed since the time of Jesus. Luke 11: 37-53

My Crime which has cost so much ,( financially and personally ) was to question the activities of this elder of the Laingholm Baptist church a man who according to the constitution of the church should portray the qualities displayed in 1 timothy 3: 1 -7.

This is to me the most unchristian thing to do and here a man of the cloth has become living proof that the parable of the good Samaritan is still true to form. Mathew 23:28

My issue is that I am still on the road side bleeding; I am still being beaten up by a member of your church community. My question is how many of you will pass me by and is there a Good Samaritan amongst you who will assist or are you all going to cross over to the other side of the road.

I make this plea to you first because out there in the Christian community there must be some one who believes that this is not right.

We cannot pretend to be one thing and act as another to do so would not be Christian and when by silence others condone these false hoods in character, then we truly are on the path to a Godless society and a Godless society is GOOD LESS .Exodus 23:1 ,

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,as we forgive those who trespass against us.And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,

the power and the glory,

for ever and ever.

Amen

Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it

I hope to hear from your church so that this matter can be resolved for all parties and the common good of New Zealanders.

It is indeed sad that people such as Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap , who put their names forward to be on a trust of such significance as AWINZ and SIGNED the trust deed chose to resign and remain silent as soon as questions were asked.

They also knowingly stood by as peoples lives were devastated and families ripped apart. at any time they could have spoken up at any time they could have made a difference .

Another such nominee is the pastor of the Laingholm Baptist church who like Sarah and Nuala, chose to cross over to the other side of the road and did nothing while people were unjustly being beaten up . Intervention by any one of these people least of all by a man of the cloth would have made a difference.

further nominees are MAF and he various government departments who prefer to turn a blind eye and while the larger wrong continues there are many who are prosecuted for far smaller transgressions,